W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2003

resources, denotations and lattices

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:20:09 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

I was offline when I drafted my last response, and have now done a little 

Short verion:
[1]  http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signtalk.htm
[2]  http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/autotalk.htm
[3]  http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.htm

Longer version:

It seems the keywords Sowa and Lattice appear in two different contexts:

(a) Sowa's formation of an upper-level Ontology which is based on earlier 
philosophical works and appears in his book on Knowledge Representation.  I 
don't think that is going to assist in the particular topic that lead to 
this discussion.

(b) "John Sowa's potentially infinite open-ended lattice of theories", 
which might have some bearing on the topic....  This, too, seems to be 
related to upper-ontology work, but has more resonance with the 
what-does-a-URI-identify question.  Folling this line, I found some 
possible jump-off points:
This slide suggests a link between theories and "what-is-identified":

note reference to "Language Games":
Words only have a precise, formalizable meaning with respect to a 
particular language game.

and (this is a paper with much more detail, which I've yet to read):


At 10:52 22/07/03 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Mine too, but I'm almost terrified to leave this in
>the hands of the experts. :-)
>I saw a reference to Scott's work in the Google listing.
>I don't know what the originating relationships are. I
>know that Sowa writes with unusual clarity on the issues
>of concepts and set theory.  He derives from Peirce and
>clarifies that as well which is no mean feat.  It may
>be that for the architecture, one has to admit that
>the theories about why it works are available but not
>as important as capturing the how.  In the case
>of one URI = one concept, that is easy to do:
>assignment.  To the case of proving that there is
>only one concept to which that assignment can be
>made, that isn't doable except insofar as assignment
>to the empty set (the theory of all theories) makes sense.
>Sowa is clear about the lattice membership.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org]
>Getting out of my depth, but...  does this have any relationship to the
>work that Dana Scott did back in the 1970s on lattices and a theory of
>computation, which in turn provided some basis for denotational semantics
>of programming languages?  I recall that the notions of approximation and
>monotonicity came into that work, with some reference to functions being
>ordered according to some notion of "accuracy".
>At 09:45 22/07/03 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> >You could research John Sowa's lattice theory for
> >more precise language to describe this notion.
> >
> >Apologies but Google returns far too much material
> >to provide a precise URI to start the research
> >if you aren't already acquainted with it.  And
> >that tells us something about URIs and precise
> >identification. :-)
> >
> >len
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org]
> >
> >We agree that we, as people, try to use a URI to refer to
> >a "single", more or less consistent, concept that is a topic of
> >communication.  But there is no way to formalize this single concept:  I
> >think the best we can do is to describe it as a kind of "locus" of
> >denotations from interpretations that satisfy some formal statements we can
> >make about it.
>Graham Klyne
>PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E

Graham Klyne
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2003 13:36:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:00 UTC